John, Ok, I've tested again with both samba and SFTP. Samba is significantly quicker than SFTP with the iso file copying in ~5-6 minutes instead of the 35+ being shown by SFTP. But looking at top whilst the processes are running the system is doing virtually nothing during both transfers, (both smbd and sshd during the respective transfers are peaking at <5% CPU usage, (the system has an Athlon64 3400+ (like Sunny ;) )). At the Windows end the system was running at about 40% system utilization according to Process Explorer.
Running the transfer on plain disk instead of off of the Raid array does not seem to make much of a difference in the transfer rates.
From what I can see ipv6 is enabled on the server, (there appears to
be a field with an ipv6 address in it in the ifconfig output). Would this make much of a difference in performance? Tim On 3/13/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Tim Hempstead wrote: > Accessing the system via samba from a Windows XP box seems quite slow > as does accessing it via SFTP, (a sustained SFTP transfer using > Filezilla peaked at 310kb/s .... a 670MB iso image has just taken 35+ > minutes to transfer across between them). Doesn't sftp require encrypting the file for sending? Samba should outperform sftp. >From the Bonnie figures I am > guessing the issue is more likely to lie on the networking side rather > than the disk side? Ipv6 turned off? You are getting less than 100megabit Cat5 performance. I just copied a 350meg iso across 100mbit network via samba in under 10 minutes. It pegged my linux nic at 7.4 meg for the duration according to gkrellm. So i would put that file on flat disk space (no raid) and copy it with samba to see if the problem is in the disk or the network. You definitely want to get sftp out of the picture. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
-- Tim Hempstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Tim Hempstead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
